Welcome Information Connoisseurs

Wednesday, May 29, 2013

In a 34 minute 50 second radio interview with Catholic author E. Michael Jones conducted by American Free Press editor Mark Anderson, at a point 31 minutes and ten seconds into the broadcast: Mr. Anderson says to Dr. Jones: "As Michael Hoffman has noted too, for so long usury was illegal, a sin, a disgrace —"(Jones interrupts Anderson): "First of all it has never ceased being a sin. The Catholic Church has never declared that usury is not sinful. It's still a sin. It's a mistake to think that the Church has changed its teaching on usury. That is not the case."Anderson: "Yeah, maybe they don't emphasize it like they should."Jones: "Of course they don't emphasize it, but it is still the teaching of the Church. Vix Pervenit is an infallible encyclical of the Catholic Church. That is the Church teaching, so we need to lay this illusion to rest."Michael Hoffman replies:I have not been asked to respond to Dr. Jones by Mr. Anderson, but I will do so here, as follows:If the Catholic Church considers usury still a mortal sin, as E. Michael Jones alleges, why does no usurer have to confess his or her sin and receive absolution before attending Holy Communion?Since 1830, under the pontificate of Pius VIII (and all subsequent popes), mortally sinful, unrepentant usurers have been admitted to reception of the Holy Eucharist without having confessed or been absolved.In Vix Pervenit (1745) Benedict XIV expanded Leo X’s "infallible" 1515 Bulla Concilii in decima sessione super materia Montis Pietati, promulgating the lawfulness of charging interest for philanthropic ends, to include the lawfulness of interest on investment credit capital. While Vix Pervenit is often cited, by the semi-literate, as a reaffirmation of the magisterial pre-Renaissance dogma on usury, such claims represent an intellectually lazy failure to note and comprehend Vix Pervenit’s “fine print.” After many anti-usury rhetorical flourishes throughout the document, the technique of the devolutionary degradation of God’s law through gradualism was deployed with the following subtle papal statement:

“We do not deny that at times together with the loan contract certain other titles — which are not intrinsic to the contract — may run parallel with it. From these other titles, entirely just and legitimate reasons arise to demand something over and above the amount due on the contract.”

The papal usurers apply rabbinic-style loopholes to sneak their usury past the eyes of gullible Catholics who have a psychological need to believe that the Renaissance and post-Renaissance Church of Rome did not overthrow the dogma of the True Church. Vix Pervenit consists of 98% anti-usury rhetoric and 2% loopholes by which usury could continue to operate. Note that in Vix Pervenit Benedict XIV declined to apply the general prohibition to the specific usury contracts which gave rise for the need for his encyclical in the first place.Jones accepts Vix Pervenit atface value, even though Vix Pervenit is a textbook example of Vatican dissimulation and misdirection, very much in the tenor of the current Pope Francis's undoubtedly eloquent jeremiads against avarice and obsessive pursuit of economic affluence to the detriment of family values. Exceedingly naive people believe that this sort of oratory signifies something. But Jesus Christ said By their fruits ye shall know them, not by their palaver.Res ipsa loquitor - the facts speak for themselves - usury, both from inside the papacy and among Catholics in general, has grown exponentially, largely unimpeded, from Leo X in 1515, through Benedict XIV in 1745, Pius VIII in 1830, Benedict XV in 1917, John Paul II in 1983, up to the present time of Benedict XVI and now Francis. In the midst of all of these pontificates no other pope restored the mortal sinfulness of usury, or declared that all interest on loans of money must cease immediately, on pain of eternal damantion. Vix Pervenit was by no means the last word of the post-Renaissance Church on usury. Dr. Jones should explain to his audience the Catholic Code of Canon Law of 1917, which approved interest on loans. One definition of usury is the charging of a profit on a loan of a consumable fungible good. The 1917 Code of Canon Law declares, “...in the loan of a fungible thing, it is not by itself illicit to reap a legal profit..."No change, Dr. Jones?The Catholic Code of Canon Law of 1983 actually requires clerics in charge of church funds to obtain interest on money, and a usury bank, the IOR (Istituto per le Opere di Religione), has operated for decades in Vatican City, under papal auspices. No change, Dr. Jones?When the new Pope Francis inveighs against economic predation and injustice while continuing the nearly 500 year revolutionary practice of the Church of Rome to incrementally permit the mortal sin of usury, the pontiff is only ensuring that it will continue. His deceptive rhetoric functions as a disguise, to mask the reality of the overthrow of the dogma of usury's mortal sinfulness by the Church of Rome.By the 19th and 20th centuries many Catholics had been sufficiently alchemically processed that most failed to protest the fact that usury was by then no longer a mortal sin. The absolute proof for this factis that the obligation to confess and be absolved of the sin of charging interest on loans was quietly lifted with papal permission, beginning in 1830, after which the "teaching of the Catholic Church," i.e. the Canon Law, declared that interest on a loan is lawful if not "immoderate." Finally, in 1983, the Canon Law mandated that clerics were to be sure toobtain interest on eclesiastical monies.Denying these facts does nothing to advance the the Gospel of Jesus Christ and the True Church of All Time. The Church of Jesus Christ is based on Truth and formed by believers possessed of the vision and courage to proclaim that Truth, however much it dismays true believers in modernist religious rackets put forth by pious mountebanks.Many of us learned this harsh truth long ago with regard to the betrayals by popes such as Paul VI, John Paul II and Benedict XVI. The notion that this subversive papal phenomenon is almost exclusively limited to the era of the 20th and 21st centuries has masterfully succeeded in concealing the root of the situation ethics that produced Vatican Council II's Nostra Aetate, and post-conciliar betrayals and subversion. Situation ethics began to rule the Church of Rome five centuries ago, not 50 years ago. Until Catholics learn this historical fact they will not be able to overcome the enemies of God and will continue to be misdirected into impotent activism based on half truths. My book on usury is intended to spark the beginning of a process of historical investigation of the authentic root of the diabolical financial arcana that gave rise to situation ethics within the papacy. It is tragic that at five minutes to midnight on the clock of destiny, prominent Catholics continue to seek to interdict an investigation of the trail of the Money Power’s usurpation of the papacy, by expecting us to submit to their childish belief in the credibility of Vatican doubletalk.The only way my facts can be successfully countered is by the familiar under-handed tactics of silence and suppression. My opponents have no other answer to my research. My thanks to Mr. Anderson of the American Free Press for mentioning my thesis to Dr. Jones on the air, and to First Amendment Books for selling copies of my book to readers of the American Free Press newspaper. These are two tiny candles in a cavern of darkness — but who knows — perhaps they will yet ignite a flame of inquiry that cannot be extinguished.Mark L. of North Carolina writes: "The only illusion that Jones is creating here is one of his own making. The evidence you supply in Usury in Christendom is overwhelming and short of discrediting the source material, will stand."That may be true, but some people’s minds will never be changed. One can give proof and people are not persuaded because their biases are so intense. The more proof Jesus gave to the Jews of who He was, the more intensely they hated him. The human heart by nature is hostile to truth.

Michael Hoffman is the author of Usury in Christendom: The Mortal Sin that Was and Now is Nots), has been endorsed by Rev. Fr. Christopher Hunter, pastor of St. Therese Roman Catholic Chapel in Klamath Falls, Oregon; and by eminent anti-usury campaigners Anthony Migchels and Daniel Krynicki, as well as Amazon reader-reviewers. Usury in Christendom is blacklisted and boycotted by the overwhelming majority of Catholic leaders, publications and organizations, whether liberal, conservative or “traditional." "Catholic Social Teaching” and “distributist” conferences and gatherings have declined to feature Mr. Hoffman as either a speaker, debater or participant.

This current move is a cunning strategy. I have also seen it in the pagan New Age movement where "the Christ" is embraced as a divine part of a "lineage" that includes Buddha and the Dalai Lama.

Lorraine Boettner predicted this circa 1957: they will have their Talmudic paganism and new-found ‘reverence' for Jesus (the semi-divine good man).

Our Lord Himself said: "So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth" (Rev. 3:16).

Here is a nonsensical statement from this Nazarene Judaism blog:

Have the Jews really rejected Yeshua? The only "Jesus" that most Jewish people have ever been exposed to is the "Jesus" that supposedly came to "free them from the bondage of the Law". Yes, they have rejected this Torahless Jesus, and rightly so. But most of them have never been exposed to the real Yeshua. (End quote).

Jesus didn't free anyone from the Torah of Yahweh. True. He freed them from the spurious "Torah sheBeal Peh" of the man-made traditions of Babylon as encoded in the Mishnah, Gemara, Mishneh Torah, Shulchan Aruch, Tanya, Zohar etc. ad nauseum.

Notice that the "Nazarene Space" blog states that they will have their own New Testament, it will not be in Greek, but the "original languages" of Hebrew and Aramaic. Really, the New Testament was first written in Hebrew and Aramaic? Textual falsification is key to gnostic diabolism and rabbinic diabolism.

Another statement from the blog, this one dripping in racial conceit and megalomania: "The Jewish people know that an anti-Torah Messiah is no Messiah at all, they know better than to accept the rank paganism attached to Gentile Christianity."

"The Jewish people know." Observe the self-worship and the insinuation of a collective racial wisdom. Notice that "gentile Christianity" is said to be pagan with the implication that a "Jewish Christianity" will be strictly in accordance with God's Word.

This kind of buncombe is an insult to the intelligence of anyone who knows anything fundamental about Orthodox Judaism's deep paganism, beginning with self-worship, and from there to astrology, amulets, curses, the evil eye, reincarnation and the idolization of the rebbe as wonder-worker. What of the money paid by devout Judaics for people to daven (pray) at the tombs of various rabbis considered wonder workers? What of the fellatio of the child by the mohel in the Hasidic bris? What of the overwhelming superstition endemic to Chabad-Lubavitch Hasidism (and every other Hasidism)?

Orthodox Judaism in its Talmud is the religion of the soothsayers of Babylon. Read Judaism Discovered; Judaism's Strange Gods and our forthcoming book, Testing the Talmud.

The Talmud Bavli is the blueprint of bureaucracy. The Talmud is anti-Jewish because it imposes tyrannical micro-management of Judaic daily life. Jesus came to free the Jews from dead rituals prescribed by men to enslave people to the cult of man. The Torah of Jesus is found in the New Testament's fulfillment of the Old Testament. Rabbinic Judaism's ersatz “Torah" is found, to give but one instance, in the dictatorial, trivial, legalistic, mind-numbing Shabbos (Sabbath) observance concocted by Pharisees and their rabbinic heirs. Here is the letter of the halacha that kills the human spirit:

Gentile Christianity, so execrated by "Nazarene Judaism," rightly fled from this template of dictatorship, out of which sprang Bolshevik Leninism and many other destructive bureaucracies.

The "Nazarene Judaism" blog quotes Judaic Prof. Daniel Boyarin as follows: "Christology, or the early ideas about Christ, is also a Jewish discourse and not–until much later–an anti-Jewish discourse at all."

Jesus, Mary and the apostles were all Jews, so where is the anti-Jewish discourse? To the extent that first century Jews rejected the clear evidence that Jesus was the Moshiach (Messiah-Christ of Israel), they bore guilt for His crucifixion. The generations bearing that guilt are long dead, having largely perished in the Roman assaults on Jerusalem in 70 and 135 A.D. Today the guilt for denying the doctrine and resurrection of the Son of God, Jesus Christ, is endemic not to people but to ideology, wherein is counseled rebellion against God; more specifically, in the continuation of the wicked ideology of the Pharisees, in the form of contemporary Orthodox Judaism.

The race-obsessed Talmudists insist on imposing their ethnic, warping prism on the religion of the New Testament and calling it "Nazarene Judaism." They even claim that Christ kept kosher! Do they mean by this that He kept his meat and dairy products separate according to the crazed fulminations of the Talmudic Chazal? See if you can find anything in favor of the insane halachos ofkashrut in I Timothy 4: 1-8. These "Nazarene" Judaics must derogate or falsify the Apostle Paul in order to proceed with their counterfeit gospel.

"The Spirit has explicitly said that during the last times there will be some who will desert the faith and choose to listen to deceitful spirits and doctrines that come from devils."

This writer has been invited to speak at the "America's Promise Annual Bible Summer Conference" in Sandpoint, Idaho, which will be held Friday July 26 through Sunday July 28. The town of Sandpoint is located in northern Idaho, on the shore of one of most beautiful bodies of water in North America, Lake Pend Oreille (www.sandpointonline.com/rec/lakeguide/index.html).

I will give two talks at the America's Promise conference. The first will be "Early Protestant Resistance to Usury: Setting the Record Straight." The next day I will give an address based on new research, "Counterfeit Israel: How Ancient Paganism Mixed with Rabbinic Judaism." We will also have a book and literature table offering our latest publications, including Testing the Talmud, a book which will be published in June by Independent History and Research. (I have written the introduction to this book, which was authored by a university professor of ancient Hebrew).

The conference in Sandpoint is hosted by Pastor and Mrs. Dave Barley, both of whom will be speaking, along with: Richard Kirsch, Thomas Rolland, Doug Evers and Ernestine Young. I have been informed that Charles Jennings may travel from South Africa to speak, though his appearance is not, at this point, certain.

The America's Promise Annual Bible Summer Conference will be held on the grounds of the America's Promise Church on the outskirts of Sandpoint. Admission to the conference is by donation (please be generous). Lunch will be served on the grounds of the church, also on a donation basis.

Sandpoint is a summer destination for many travelers. Hotel and motel information is provided below. If you believe you will attend, then to avoid disappointment book your lodging and transportation as soon as you are able. The conference site is located near railroad tracks and for those who don't mind the noise from occasional passing freight trains, the organizers permit camping in tents, as well as RV campers parked on the grounds (space permitting).

Dave Barley and this writer have over the years disagreed on points of faith. In spite of these disagreements I respect Dave and his wife and family for their consistent defiance of the forces of the New World Order. The Barleys have been heavily pressured and defamed by the media, and self-appointed (and misnamed) "human rights" lobbyists. In more than 20 years of speaking candidly about Judaism, Zionism and on the question of which nation(s) of people actually comprise "Israel," Pastor Barley has never compromised in the face of numerous assaults, including vandalism of his church and threats on his life. America's Promise has in the past hosted and recorded my earliest lectures on Judaism which eventually formed the basis of the first (2000) edition of my book, Judaism's Strange Gods.

I am most grateful to America’s Promise for this opportunity to share my research on Judaism as well as on the subject of usury, with an audience of truthseekers, and to meet with friends both old and new.

TRANSPORTATION TO SANDPOINT:
An Amtrak train station is located in Sandpoint: www.amtrak.com

The nearest major airport is in Spokane, Washington. From Spokane International Airport drive to I-90 east and travel approximately 35 miles to Coeur d'Alene, Idaho. In Coeur d'Alene take I-95 north appoximately 50 miles to Sandpoint.

SANDPOINT AREA LODGING

The first four motels listed below are most convenient for those who wish to be within walking distance of the town of Sandpoint's public beach, boat cruise (www.lakependoreillecruises.com/), marina, restaurants, shops etc. The America's Promise conference is located approximately three miles from downtown Sandpoint.

Best Western Edgewater Hotel, 56 Bridge St. (208) 263-3194. This is the most expensive of the four downtown motels and the only one downtown that is located on the lakeshore. Indoor pool, spa, sauna, exercise room and continental breakfast. Inside and outdoor deck dining at their renowned "Trinity at City Beach" restaurant. RV park. http://sandpointhotels.com/edgewater/

Located off Route 95, the hotel has free parking, with large-vehicle spaces, free continental breakfast and hot tub and sauna. Each room features free Wi-Fi Internet access and kids 17 and under stay free with an adult. www.daysinn.com

DISCLAIMER: none of the businesses, resturants and hotels/motels listed above are affiliated or connected in any way with the America's Promise Conference or Michael Hoffman. They are listed here for tourist information purposes only.

Thursday, May 16, 2013

While I regret that any arms are being sent to ether side in this horrible civil war, since some of the Gulf states that are implicated in advancing Wahabist/Salafist Islamic fundamentalism and the terrorism and anti-Christian repression that it is known for, are also shipping weapons to car-bombers and Christian-hating “Syrian rebels,” with the collusion of NATO, Great Britain and the U.S., it is understandable that Russia wants to protect the Orthodox Christian population of Syria from massacre, and retain its Syrian naval base.

The Israelis recently invaded Syrian air space and bombed not just “arms bound for Hezbollah,” but Syrian government troops. Should the Israelis be allowed to assist in the overthrow of Assad with their aerial missiles and bombs? Do only the Israelis have the right to intervene?

I welcome Vladimir Putin’s independence, and defiance of the New World Order. Russia is finding support from emerging nations such as India, Brazil, Venezuela, Bolivia and perhaps even China. These nations view state terror perpetrated by arrogant western powers, which we saw in NATO’s overthrow of Qaddafi in Libya, as the bloody and hypocritical reincarnation of 19th century colonialism in “human rights” habiliments.

Wednesday, May 15, 2013

Advertisements for Michael Hoffman's book Usury in Christendom: The Mortal Sin that Was and Now is Not are banned from the pages of The American Conservative magazine. Advertising director Ronald Burr informed Independent History and Research on May 15 that The American Conservative will not accept an ad for the book. No reason was given. (1710 Rhode Island Avenue NW, Suite 1200, Washington, DC 20036. Tel. 202-955-3600. letters@theamericanconservative.com)

One wonders how the comparatively small American Conservative magazine hopes to attract the blessing of Providence and gain a wider audience when it is so timid? Usury in Christendom is just what its title indicates, an exposé of the heretofore neglected subject of gentile usurers, not Judaic ones (since so much has already been written about the latter to the exclusion of any investigation of the former). Ergo, our “offense” cannot lie in the content of the book, but in the maligned reputation of its author, who is routinely libeled as an “antisemite holocaust denier.” Why would a national publication risk the howls of a slew of Zionist enforcers by running an advertisement for a new study of the Money Power, penned by a pariah? The debacle is doubly dismal in that the magazine’s editor, Ron Unz, is an otherwise sage wordsmith who usually has something of value to say. Of the prevalence of fraud in American society, Mr. Unz opines: “Credibility is a capital asset, which may take years to accumulate but can be squandered in an instant; and the events of the last dozen years should have bankrupted any faith we have in our government or media.”

It's hard to square his assessment of “government or media” with what we know is his magazine’s policy of blocking advertisements for books by stigmatized revisionist researchers. Yes, Mr. Unz, credibility is a capital asset and it can indeed be squandered, with just a single ban on a book.

Since November we have mailed approximately fifty review copies of Usury in Christendom to history magazines, literary journals, university professors, theology associations, Protestant ministers and Catholic priests, both in the U.S. and overseas. We continue to hope and pray that one or more of these will take notice of the book in their respective publications, institutions and churches.

Friday, May 10, 2013

The Church of Scotland, under pressure from the ‘British Board of Jewish Deputies’ has suppressed its own ten-page report, “The Inheritance ofAbraham,” exposing the ungodly and unscriptural claims of Zionism to the land of Palestine.

Here below is a copy of the Church of Scotland’s cave-in to the inevitable pressure that is almost always exerted by the highly organized Nazi-Zionist lobby, against any effective exposure of the evil of Zionism and the Israeli imperium. The press release makes no mention of the fact that the original “Inheritance ofAbraham” report has been removed from the website of the Church of Scotland.

The Church of Scotland and representatives of the Jewish Community in Scotland and the United Kingdom, held useful discussions facilitated by the Council of Christians and Jews this afternoon, Thursday 8 May.

We agreed that the drafting of the report published by the Church and Society Council for discussion at the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland has given cause for concern and misunderstanding of its position and requires a new introduction to set the context for the report and give clarity about some of the language used.

In particular the Church of Scotland needs to be explicit about some things that are implicit policies of the Church:

There is no change in the Church of Scotland's long held position of the right of Israel to exist.

The Church condemns all violence and acts of terrorism, where ever they happen in the world.

The concern of the Church about the injustices faced by the Palestinian people in the Occupied Palestinian Territories remain firm, but that concern should not be misunderstood as questioning the right of the State of Israel to exist.

That the Church condemns all things that create a culture of anti-Semitism. There is an equal sense of concern amongst both communities for justice and peace for all the people of Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories.

Sitting round the table and listening to each other more deeply has created a real opportunity for both communities to better understand each other and that this report now becomes a catalyst for continued and growing conversation.

The two communities have agreed to work together both here and in Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories to continue what was a very positive dialogue.

Church and Society Council, Church of Scotland
Scottish Council of Jewish Communities
Board of Deputies of British Jews
Movement for Reform Judaism
Rabbis for Human Rights

Wednesday, May 01, 2013

Editor's note: One of the obligations of an author is to reply to readers when they ask questions. Not all authors would agree with me, but that is how I see my duty. I often receive queries about Judaism and if they are sincere and demonstrate that the questioner has conducted some research on his or her own first, then I try to find the time to answer. Some weeks it makes for a considerable correspondence. I probably anger or offend some people when I answer with just a brief missive, or not at all. Here is an e-mail received May 1 from a man in Sweden, and my response.

On May 1, 2013, at 12:26, Lasse K. wrote:

Dear Michael Hoffman

I am trying to convince a rabbi to try to debunk the late professor Shahak's understanding of the Talmud as well as your compilation of Talmud-quotes, instead of just crying out "Antisemites"!

I've been absolutely correct in my manners in the email-correspondance with the rabbi, but he has not stopped using abusive language towards me.

He promotes the idea that you and Shahak have not understood the Talmud, so I have offered him to state the amount of money he needs to tutor me/debunk your and professor Shahaks understaning/explanations of the Talmud. To debunk, I've explained to him is to use Talmud-quotes to prove your explanations wrong. He has not responded to my latest mail, but before I publish the e-mail correspondance here in Sweden, to a number of people that I have on an e-mail-list (journalists, parliamentarians, Expo (Swedish version of ADL), synagogues in Sweden) I wanted to ask him if he can't tutor me because it is forbidden to tutor a gentile in the Talmud.

"In Berakoth 58a the Talmud uses Ezekiel 23:20 as proof of the sub-human status of gentiles. It also teaches that anyone (even a Jewish man) who reveals this Talmudic teaching about non-Jews deserves death, since revealing it makes Gentiles wrathful and causes the repression of Judaism."

I think you've made a mistake here. I cannot find anything in Berakoth 58a that supports this. Is there any other place in the Talmud that forbids the teaching of gentile in the Talmud?

Dear Mr. K:

I have not erred. Perhaps you are using a redacted version of the Talmud Bavli (Babylonian Talmud - hereafter "BT"); most English versions are redacted. The only reliable, uncensored English translation is the Steinsaltz.

Please note that I mainly cite BT Berakoth 58a to give evidence of the sub-human status of goyim (gentiles) in Judaic halacha (law). Rabbinic halacha holds that goyim are animals and 58a is one of the readiest means by which this can be verified. The gentile woman with whom the Jew has sexual relations is equated with a "female donkey." Elijah the prophet is called to serve as a corroborating witness to this Talmudic "fact." Later, in Berakoth 58a it is affirmed that all gentiles are donkeys.

This doctrine that gentiles are animals remains current in our time, having been taught as recently as 2010 by Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, senior Sephardic posek and head of the Israeli Shas Council of Torah Sages (cf. Judaism's Strange Gods, p. 206).

In reply to your claim that I have misquoted BT Berakoth 58a, if you have an uncensored copy of that text at hand, you will see that at the very end of Berakoth 58a, Rabbi Sheila's antagonist threatens to inform the Persian authorities that the rabbi has called the Persians, "donkeys." The rabbi then declares that this would-be informant is a rodef (pursuer). A rodef is subject to being killed on sight.

If you persist in claiming I have this wrong, then I can send you a photocopy of the original Aramaic text of BT Berakoth 58a (contrary to popular opinion, the Talmud Bavli is written mostly in Aramaic, not Hebrew).

If you are seeking a more blatant declaration of what happens to truth-tellers in the rabbinic universe, turn to the uncensored English translation of BT Sanhedrin 59a concerning gentiles who study the Talmud: "A non-Jew who engages in the study of the Torah is liable for execution."

Lest you imagine that the allusion to "Torah" excludes the Gemara (Talmud), be aware that the man-made oral law and traditions of the rabbis is called the Torah sheBeal peh.

The Talmud is a lawyer's manual of situation ethics and these are adopted or altered as circumstances change. Loopholes and escape clauses abound. One of these, a supplement to Sanhedrin 59a, modifies the original statement, as follows: "According to Meiri, a non-Jew is only forbidden to study the Torah if his intention is to gain knowledge in order to vex Jews."

In other words, the Talmud can be studied, in this modern age, by post-Renaissance Catholic Cardinal Jean-Pierre Ricard at the Yeshivat Chovevei, because with the knowledge Ricard gains he will use it to "vex" Christians like Bishop Richard Williamson and that is of course permissible. It is however, a death penalty offense for Williamson, or Michael Hoffman, to study the Talmud because they will use the knowledge they gain to "vex" the synagogue of the Pharisees.

Judaism is not a religion of plain talk or unambiguous and eternal dogma (except in a few areas such as the racial and spiritual superiority of the Judaic male, or the supreme halachic status of the sacred texts of Chazal, which surpass even God in authority; both of these are non-negotiable). Most everything else is subject to adjustment, modification, equivocation, casuistry, and dissimulation, according to the zeitgeist. Not even some rabbis fully grasp the depths of exegetical deception and misdirection entailed by gezarah shava and ve’ain morin kain. Here we enter the domain of triple six.

It is a standard response to my work on the part of rabbis and other adversaries, to dismiss this writer's research on the basis that I have "misquoted the Talmud." This allegation is tendered without evidence, solely on the basis of the supposed prestige of the rabbi or other establishment-certified "expert" who levels the accusation; which is put forth merely on the basis of their personal say so (ipse dixit). Usually that's enough to convince most goyim that I am a hateful propagandist. In case you haven't noticed, in the twenty-first century there is not a very high premium on truth, even among "our" people. How many are willing to die for it? How many are even willing to pay anything for it?

I have written an 1100 page book, (Judaism Discovered) and a 382 page book (Judaism's Strange Gods), and these can provide further research leads of possible use to you. It helps save valuable time and energy if you would consult these works before querying me. Nonetheless, if you have a question, I will do my best to endeavor to answer it, as my other obligations and duties allow.

The early Zionists denied the existence of Palestinians in 1882 when they arrived; it is even more shocking to find out that they deny their existence — beyond sporadic ghettoized communities — in 2013.

In a regal interview he gave in April to the Israeli press, on the eve of the state’s "Independence Day,” Shimon Peres, the current president of Israel, said the following:

“I remember how it all began. The whole state of Israel is a millimeter of the whole Middle East. A statistical error, barren and disappointing land, swamps in the north, desert in the south, two lakes, one dead and an overrated river. No natural resource apart from malaria. There was nothing here. And we now have the best agriculture in the world? This is a miracle: a land built by people” (Maariv, 14 April 2013).

This fabricated narrative, voiced by Israel’s number one citizen and spokesman, highlights how much the historical narrative is part of the present reality. This presidential impunity sums up the reality on the eve of the 65th commemoration of the Nakba, the ethnic cleansing of historic Palestine. The disturbing fact of life, 65 years on, is not that the figurative head of the so-called Jewish state, and for that matter almost everyone in the newly-elected Israeli government and parliament, subscribe to such views. The worrying and challenging reality is the global immunity given to such impunity.

Peres’ denial of the native Palestinians and his reselling in 2013 of the landless people mythology exposes the cognitive dissonance in which he dwells: he denies the existence of approximately twelve million Palestinian people living in and near to the land to which they belong. History shows that the human consequences are horrific and catastrophic when powerful people, heading powerful outfits such as a modern state, deny the existence of a people who are very much present and have been present for centuries.

This denial was there at the beginning of Zionism and led to the ethnic cleansing in 1948. And it is there today, which may lead to similar disasters in the future — unless stopped immediately.

Cognitive dissonance

The perpetrators of the 1948 ethnic cleansing were the Zionist settlers who came to Palestine before the Second World War, like Polish-born Shimon Peres. They denied the existence of the native people they encountered, who had lived there for hundreds of years, if not more. The Zionists did not possess the power at the time to settle the cognitive dissonance they experienced: their conviction that the land was people-less despite the presence of so many native Palestinians living there.

They almost solved the dissonance when they expelled as many Palestinians as they could in 1948 — and were left with only a minority of Palestinians within "the Jewish state."

But the Zionist greed for territory and ideological conviction that much more of Palestine had to be annexed in order to have a viable Jewish state, led to constant conspiring, and eventually military operations to enlarge the state.

With the creation of “Greater Israel” following the conquest of the West Bank and Gaza in 1967, the dissonance returned. The solution however could not easily be resolved this time by the force of ethnic cleansing. The number of Palestinians in the territories was larger, their assertiveness and liberation movement were forcefully present on the ground, and even the most cynical and traditionally pro-Israeli actors on the international scene recognized their existence.

The dissonance was resolved in a different way. The land without people was any part of the "greater Israel” ("eretz Israel”) which the state was determined to Judaize in the pre-1967 boundaries, or annex from the territories occupied in 1967. The land with people is in the Gaza Strip and some enclaves in the West Bank as well as inside Israel. The myth of the land without people is destined to expand incrementally in the future, causing the number of people to shrink as a direct consequence of this encroachment.

This incremental ethnic cleansing is hard to notice unless one contextualizes it as a historical process. The noble attempt by the more conscientious individuals and groups in the West and inside Israel to focus on the here and now — when it comes to Israeli policies — is doomed to be weakened by the contemporary contextualization, not the historical one.

Comparing Palestine to other places was always a problem. But with the murderous wars in Syria, Iraq and elsewhere, it becomes an even more serious challenge. The latest Israeli closure, political arrest, or murder of a Palestinian youth are horrific crimes, but in the realm of contemporary contextualization, they pale in comparison to nearby or far-away killing fields and areas of colossal atrocities.

Criminal narrative
The comparison is very different when it is viewed historically however, and it is in this context that we should realize the criminality of Peres’ narrative which is as horrific as the occupation — and potentially far worse. For the president of Israel, a Nobel Peace Prize laureate, there were never Palestinians before he initiated in 1993 the Oslo process — and when he did, they were only the ones living — in a small part of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.

In his discourse, the Israeli president already eliminated most of the Palestinians. If you did not exist when Peres came to Palestine, you definitely do not exist while he is the president in 2013. This elimination is the point where ethnic cleansing becomes genocidal. When you are eliminated from the history books and the discourse of the top Israeli leaders and Nobel laureates, there is always the potential for your physical elimination. Invisible people are much easier to kill.

It happened before. The early Zionists, including the current president, talked about the transfer of the Palestinians long before they actually extruded many of them in 1948. The Israeli vision of a de-Arabized Palestine appeared in every Zionist diary, journal and inner conversation since the beginning of the 20th century. If one talks about nothingness in a place where there is plenty, it can be a case of willful ignorance. But if one talks about nothingness as an undeniable reality, it is only a matter of power and opportunity before the vision becomes reality.

Denial continues
Peres’ interview on the eve of the 65th commemoration of the Nakba is chilling not because it condones any violent act against the Palestinians, but because the Palestinians have entirely disappeared from his self-congratulatory admiration for the Zionist achievement in Palestine.

It is bewildering to learn that the early Zionists denied the existence of Palestinians in 1882 when they arrived; it is even more shocking to find out that they deny their existence — beyond sporadic ghettoized communities — in 2013.

In the past, this denial preceded the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians — a crime that only partially succeeded, but for which the perpetrators were never brought to justice. This is probably why the denial continues. But this time, it is not the existence of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians which is at stake, but that of almost six million who live inside historic Palestine and another five and half million living outside Palestine.

One would think only a madman could ignore millions and millions of people, many of them under his military or apartheid rule, while he actively and ruthlessly disallows the return of the rest to their homeland. But when the madman receives the best weapons from the US, Nobel Peace Prizes from Oslo and preferential treatment from the European Union, one wonders how seriously we should take the Western references to the leaders of Iran and North Korea as dangerous and lunatic?

Lunacy is associated these days, it seems, with possession of nuclear arms in Korean and Iranian hands. Well, even on that score, Israel, the local madman in the Middle East passes the test. Who knows, maybe in 2014 it would not be the Israeli cognitive dissonance that would be solved, but the Western one: how to reconcile a universal position of human and civil rights with the favored position Israel in general and Shimon Peres in particular receives in the West?